Rohitash vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2482 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16659/2021

Shyam Lal S/o Shri Sahiram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dhaylo Ki Dhani, Post Dangiyawas, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquater), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Churu, District Churu.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17252/2021 Amichand S/o Shri Baluram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village- Post Norangpura, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, District Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhiwadi, District Alwar.

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Pali, District Pali.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17367/2021 Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Rambabu Joshi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 180, Mandawar Road, Krishana Nagar, Ramgarh, Dausa (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(2 of 4) [CW-16659/2021]

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Dausa, District Dausa.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Churu, District Churu.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 110/2022 Hemraj S/o Shri Ganesh Narayan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Salarsu, Sawali, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintendent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, District Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 785/2022

Rohitash S/o Shri Harchand, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Shuklawas, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Superintedent Of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintedent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, District Jaipur.

4. The Superintedent Of Police, Jalore, District Jalore.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.

                                             (3 of 4)                      [CW-16659/2021]


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                       Order

11/02/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners -

Constable/Head Constable aggrieved against orders dated

05.08.2021, wherein, they have been transferred out of

District/Range.

Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to

judgments in the case of Subhash Chandra v. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10353/2021, decided on

03.09.2021, as upheld by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan

& Ors. v. Surendra Khokhar (Kumar): D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.610/2021, decided on 29.11.2021 made submissions that the

order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the respondents affecting inter-

district / inter-range transfer of the petitioners have already been

held to be contrary to the provisions of governing Rules and,

therefore, as the issue raised is squarely covered by the said

judgments of this Court, the petitions deserve to be allowed.

Learned AAG though does not dispute that issue raised in the

present petitions are covered by judgments in the case of

Subhash Chandra (supra) and Surendra Khokhar (supra),

however, made submissions that the petitions are highly belated,

inasmuch as, the order impugned was passed on 05.08.2021, the

petitioners pursuant to the said orders have joined at the

transferred place and the petitions have been filed in the month of

November / December, 2021 and January, 2022 and on account of

delay, which has not been explained, the petitions deserve

dismissal.

(4 of 4) [CW-16659/2021]

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The issue raised is squarely covered by judgments in the

case of Subhash Chandra (supra) and Surendra Khokhar (supra).

So far as the plea raised regarding the delay in filing of the

petitions is concerned, the issue, which was decided by this Court

pertains to the similar orders dated 05.08.2021 and it was held

that the seniority of the Constable/Head Constable is to be

maintained at District Level and in case, they are transferred out

of district/range, the same would not be legal and would be

contrary to the provisions of the Rules.

Merely because pursuant to the order of transfer dated

05.08.2021, the petitioners have joined at the transferred place,

qua the grievance raised regarding their seniority getting affected

and the transfer being contrary to the provisions of the Rules, the

same cannot act as estoppel and as the cause of action affecting

seniority is continuous, it cannot be said that merely on account of

the fact that the petitioners have approached this Court after a

gap of 3 to 6 months, the petitions deserve dismissal.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions are

allowed. The orders dated 05.08.2021 qua the petitioners are

quashed and set-aside.

The petitioners are permitted to join back at the place from

where they were transferred by the impugned orders.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 17-20 & 29-

padeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)